Whole piece was amusing but this is what nearly had me laughing:
SULLIVAN: But nobody remembers.
WEISS: And this time we’re not gonna back down!
[Tom Petty plays; fast CURTAIN.]
As for Sully and his phallophilia, the final nail in the coffin for me was back eons ago when he was telling his brothers that they must engage in safe sex while he chose not to. (His editor gig at New Republic is where I lost for them; since almost regained under current leadership but for a paywall out Stalag-17. Or maybe my local slammer, Greenhaven, way north of NYC.)
I keep hearing someone slagging Sullivan for gay things here, and I got to wonder what the intention is. He's gay yes and gay men do have gay sex. Maybe the time has come to move past this as an objection to Sully (you will notice that Roy hasn't needed to mention it anytime recently...)
Here's a link to a Nation story about Sullivan's HIV status (back when it happened, in 2001):
I despise Sullivan for many many things, including weaponizing his bougie white gay privileged male status against all other queer people as well as being an awful writer & deeply racist, bigoted thinker -- but him seeking sexual encounters as a Poz man is not one of them. We're not living in the 1980s any longer -- Poz folx have treatments available to control the virulent nature of the disease (and even more so since PrEP treatments were introduced around 2004). Seeking to have sex of whatever sort with other poz men is not wrong. It's actually a safer practice, right? It doesn't make him a hypocrite, so stop going on about it.
Many many str8 people have this conditional acceptance of the queer: one of the worst of them is the "we accept you as long as we don't have to think about your sexuality." Dominant culture loves the HIV narrative because it creates an impediment to gay sexual expression: once you get this terrible virus you are cut off, forced to be celibate, an example has been made of you so you better start suffering.
So, to conclude: Andrew Sullivan, absolute fatuous dilweed who deserves mockery and derision for his lousy writing & moronic conservative, racist, phrenological views. But not for having a gay sex life or gay sex desires. I'm not sure why this isn't clear.
He's not being a hypocrite: he advised HIV negative gay men to practice safe sex (as he should) BUT he himself is HIV-positive. Seeking sex of whatever sort with other HIV-positive men is not being hypocritical. The spectre here is that old "super-spreader" panic canard that the media was all about in the 1980s.
Was he confining himself to HIV+ men though? While I rarely pay much attention to Sully I seem to recall one issue with him at this time was him not disclosing his HIV status in his profiles or perhaps not caring aboutthe HIV status of those he had sex with, which certainly could lead to sex with HIV- men
Great question: as the link stated, he was soliciting company on a site for HIV+ men to find others, so while he may not have been "out" as HIV+ to God & the world, it's hardly our business. If he's lying to his sexual partners, then yeah boo on him. That sucks. But as far as I can determine he was acting responsibly, so no issue to me.
Probably should include Matt Taibbi in this rogues' gallery. He's being quoted favorably by, of all people, Rod Dreher. I can think of no greater indignity.
Taibbi: All of your Democrats who want Democrats to control the government need to vote a straight Republican ticket in order to highlight the contrasts between the two parties!
That's the kind of indignity that can only be self-inflicted.
I'm pretty far left, and I'm always willing to hear a reasonable critique of my politics. There is illiberalism on the left--it's an occupational hazard of radical politics--and I'm not a big fan of it. But Taibbi now sees everything through one lens, and his writing no longer has nuance, clarity, or even intellectual honesty at times. He might someday get back to where he was, but more likely is the familiar slide from critique to hobbyhorse to masturbation.
Reminds me that my favorite part of last week was Sullivan writing a passive-aggressive final column for NY mag in which he declared that he was not cancelled but HE WAS TOTALLY CANCELLED!! and oh also he’s going back to blogging but just weekly because working on a daily basis is just so draining (said with head tilted back, hand to forehead, palm outward).
And as far as I can tell, no one noticed or cared. Perfect.
That little cartoon avi he has on his Twitter is just so punchable -- like you would get done punching him, and he would, "So you have illiberal views then? Interesting..."
I do like the cartoon, because it's by Terry Colon, and so it reminds me of the early days of the internet, when the whole place was full of promise and wonder (like this site is now), and no one knew where anything was, so "searching" meant typing in a made-up URL to see if it had a site. The weirdos were building Angelfire shrines to The X-Files, Geocities sites dedicated to suicide in Wizard of Oz, Tripod pages about an upcoming rave in SLC. Everything was small and human and funny. There were no pop-up ads for Target, no Boogaloos. I have fond memories of an early office job where they gave me a computer with internet and almost nothing to do. So I discovered suck.com in 1998, which was full of Terry Colon. The punchable (or ironic) quality of his faces made sense in the context of its era, when Gen X was briefly in charge of pop culture and it seemed like we really had a shot at making the world permanently smaller, weirder, and incapable of taking The Man's bullshit seriously -- like, hell, there is no way Newt Gingrich-style politics is going to survive in the internet era, my friend! Anyway, your characterization of the face is not totally off. But its spirit made sense in '98 in a way that is hard to explain in 2020.
That's really cool context for the image and I love hearing it. I miss the early Internet so bad -- all those lovingly atrocious fan sites, the Time Cube, free porn. It was great.
I'm guessing, to demonstrate their deep religiousness, Shapiro was wearing his yarmulke and Sullivan his look of moral superiority, which is the only way to tell him and Damon Linker apart.
Whole piece was amusing but this is what nearly had me laughing:
SULLIVAN: But nobody remembers.
WEISS: And this time we’re not gonna back down!
[Tom Petty plays; fast CURTAIN.]
As for Sully and his phallophilia, the final nail in the coffin for me was back eons ago when he was telling his brothers that they must engage in safe sex while he chose not to. (His editor gig at New Republic is where I lost for them; since almost regained under current leadership but for a paywall out Stalag-17. Or maybe my local slammer, Greenhaven, way north of NYC.)
I keep hearing someone slagging Sullivan for gay things here, and I got to wonder what the intention is. He's gay yes and gay men do have gay sex. Maybe the time has come to move past this as an objection to Sully (you will notice that Roy hasn't needed to mention it anytime recently...)
Here's a link to a Nation story about Sullivan's HIV status (back when it happened, in 2001):
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/andrew-sullivan-overexposed/
I despise Sullivan for many many things, including weaponizing his bougie white gay privileged male status against all other queer people as well as being an awful writer & deeply racist, bigoted thinker -- but him seeking sexual encounters as a Poz man is not one of them. We're not living in the 1980s any longer -- Poz folx have treatments available to control the virulent nature of the disease (and even more so since PrEP treatments were introduced around 2004). Seeking to have sex of whatever sort with other poz men is not wrong. It's actually a safer practice, right? It doesn't make him a hypocrite, so stop going on about it.
Many many str8 people have this conditional acceptance of the queer: one of the worst of them is the "we accept you as long as we don't have to think about your sexuality." Dominant culture loves the HIV narrative because it creates an impediment to gay sexual expression: once you get this terrible virus you are cut off, forced to be celibate, an example has been made of you so you better start suffering.
So, to conclude: Andrew Sullivan, absolute fatuous dilweed who deserves mockery and derision for his lousy writing & moronic conservative, racist, phrenological views. But not for having a gay sex life or gay sex desires. I'm not sure why this isn't clear.
I’m not slagging Sully for being gay. It’s just the hypocrisy on safe sex that irks me.
He's not being a hypocrite: he advised HIV negative gay men to practice safe sex (as he should) BUT he himself is HIV-positive. Seeking sex of whatever sort with other HIV-positive men is not being hypocritical. The spectre here is that old "super-spreader" panic canard that the media was all about in the 1980s.
OTOH, that’s not the only issue I have Sully, so...
Thanks for the enlightening!
That's the spirit. Now get out there & get her!
Was he confining himself to HIV+ men though? While I rarely pay much attention to Sully I seem to recall one issue with him at this time was him not disclosing his HIV status in his profiles or perhaps not caring aboutthe HIV status of those he had sex with, which certainly could lead to sex with HIV- men
Great question: as the link stated, he was soliciting company on a site for HIV+ men to find others, so while he may not have been "out" as HIV+ to God & the world, it's hardly our business. If he's lying to his sexual partners, then yeah boo on him. That sucks. But as far as I can determine he was acting responsibly, so no issue to me.
Well, if that's true then no problem. But I don't trust Mr. Fifth Column/Race Science is too science to have told the whole truth
Probably should include Matt Taibbi in this rogues' gallery. He's being quoted favorably by, of all people, Rod Dreher. I can think of no greater indignity.
Taibbi: All of your Democrats who want Democrats to control the government need to vote a straight Republican ticket in order to highlight the contrasts between the two parties!
That's the kind of indignity that can only be self-inflicted.
The Russians have kompromat on Taibbi from his Moscow days.
What could they possibly have that is more embarrassing than what he's been writing?
I'm pretty far left, and I'm always willing to hear a reasonable critique of my politics. There is illiberalism on the left--it's an occupational hazard of radical politics--and I'm not a big fan of it. But Taibbi now sees everything through one lens, and his writing no longer has nuance, clarity, or even intellectual honesty at times. He might someday get back to where he was, but more likely is the familiar slide from critique to hobbyhorse to masturbation.
Very apt, just don't demean masturbation so.
Word. That's getting a lot of us thru isolation... :)
What fresh hell is this?
A stale one.
"Thiel bought them out" is the part where this stopped being parody and started being documentary.
Being “centrist” just hasn’t been the same since the Overton Window slid over to the right of Strom Thurmond.
The New Intellectual Right: same as the Old Intellectual Right but with moar cheese!
Reminds me that my favorite part of last week was Sullivan writing a passive-aggressive final column for NY mag in which he declared that he was not cancelled but HE WAS TOTALLY CANCELLED!! and oh also he’s going back to blogging but just weekly because working on a daily basis is just so draining (said with head tilted back, hand to forehead, palm outward).
And as far as I can tell, no one noticed or cared. Perfect.
<chef's kiss>
That little cartoon avi he has on his Twitter is just so punchable -- like you would get done punching him, and he would, "So you have illiberal views then? Interesting..."
I do like the cartoon, because it's by Terry Colon, and so it reminds me of the early days of the internet, when the whole place was full of promise and wonder (like this site is now), and no one knew where anything was, so "searching" meant typing in a made-up URL to see if it had a site. The weirdos were building Angelfire shrines to The X-Files, Geocities sites dedicated to suicide in Wizard of Oz, Tripod pages about an upcoming rave in SLC. Everything was small and human and funny. There were no pop-up ads for Target, no Boogaloos. I have fond memories of an early office job where they gave me a computer with internet and almost nothing to do. So I discovered suck.com in 1998, which was full of Terry Colon. The punchable (or ironic) quality of his faces made sense in the context of its era, when Gen X was briefly in charge of pop culture and it seemed like we really had a shot at making the world permanently smaller, weirder, and incapable of taking The Man's bullshit seriously -- like, hell, there is no way Newt Gingrich-style politics is going to survive in the internet era, my friend! Anyway, your characterization of the face is not totally off. But its spirit made sense in '98 in a way that is hard to explain in 2020.
That's really cool context for the image and I love hearing it. I miss the early Internet so bad -- all those lovingly atrocious fan sites, the Time Cube, free porn. It was great.
I'm guessing, to demonstrate their deep religiousness, Shapiro was wearing his yarmulke and Sullivan his look of moral superiority, which is the only way to tell him and Damon Linker apart.
This should be the bomb squad - any venture of theirs will surely bomb.
"WEISS: And this time we’re not gonna back down!"
The 101st Fighting Keyboardists went down harder than the Soviet army in Finland.